Matthew Belmonte responds to an article on adults who were diagnosed with autism after their children were
Is it necessary to carry a diagnostic label simply to know oneself? Joanna Moorhead’s article suggests so, and this is a great shame (A lot fell into place’: the adults who discovered they were autistic – after their child was diagnosed, 16 December). Neurodiversity entails acceptance and, in its purest form, is inseparable from acceptance of human cognitive diversity in general. The very proposition that some individuals are categorically neurodiverse while others are not would fly in the face of the central tenet of neurodiversity, which denies that there can be any one normative or healthy type of brain or mind. Neurodiversity as a trait could only apply, therefore, to society as a whole, and not as a discriminant of individuals.
I’m glad for the parents described in the article who have gained acceptance from employers, from spouses and from themselves by identifying with the autistic traits that they see in their children. But acceptance and reasonable accommodation of individual differences in cognition and behaviour ought to be the moral right of every human being, whether or not their particular differences fall under a diagnostic classification. And the danger of an overly broad application of the diagnostic term “autism” as a descriptor of human diversity in general (“increased diagnosis is good for everyone”) is that those whose autism profoundly limits their ability to communicate and to feel in charge of their senses, thoughts, feelings and behaviour might not be recognised as having very distinct needs for support.
